Vice President JD Vance has delivered one of the most candid and restrained assessments yet of the prospects for ending the Russia–Ukraine war, signaling that a diplomatic breakthrough remains far from guaranteed even as talks continue.
In a recent interview with UnHerd, Vance acknowledged ongoing progress in negotiations but stopped short of expressing optimism. He said he could not say “with confidence” that the conflict would end in a peaceful settlement, noting that the chances of success and failure remain roughly equal. His remarks stand out as notably more sober than the tone struck by other senior figures in the Trump administration.
While Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that a resolution is still a long way off, President Donald Trump and U.S. peace envoy Steve Witkoff have been more upbeat. Witkoff, who has led recent discussions with Russian and Ukrainian representatives, described the latest round of meetings as “constructive and productive,” emphasizing continued engagement from both sides, though without announcing any concrete breakthroughs.
The contrast in messaging has become increasingly clear. Just days earlier, U.S. officials privately briefed reporters that they felt “really good” about progress, and Trump publicly claimed negotiations were closer to success than ever before. Vance’s comments, however, underline how unresolved and deeply complex the core issues remain.
At the center of the deadlock is territory—particularly the Donbas region. Control over the remaining Ukrainian-held portions of Donbas, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, and the status of ethnic Russians in Ukraine and Ukrainians in Russian-controlled areas continue to stall negotiations. Vance suggested that Ukraine may ultimately be unable to hold parts of Donbas if the war drags on, calling any territorial concession a “terrible” but potentially unavoidable outcome.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has floated a proposal to place the remaining Ukrainian-controlled areas of Donbas into a neutral free economic zone. Moscow, however, has maintained its demand for full control of the region, leaving little room for compromise.
For Kyiv, the stakes are existential. Donbas has been heavily fortified and serves as a critical buffer against further Russian advances. Losing it would not only be a symbolic blow but also a serious strategic setback.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has remained firm on what many see as maximalist demands. These include Ukraine permanently abandoning NATO aspirations, holding new elections to replace Zelenskyy, and granting protected status to the Russian language within Ukraine. On the other side, Zelenskyy has prioritized long-term security guarantees from the West to prevent future invasions.
Although Washington has offered security assurances similar to NATO’s Article 5, the Kremlin has flatly rejected any peace deal that includes Western troops stationed in Ukraine.
The White House continues to point to Witkoff’s recent talks as evidence of momentum, but Vance’s assessment highlights the sobering reality: despite diplomatic activity and optimistic headlines, the most difficult questions of territory, security, and sovereignty remain unresolved—and may determine whether peace is achievable at all.
Comments
Post a Comment